Which income/tax bracket would you prefer?

[KevinWestern]

The 16th amendment allows Congress to levy a tax on your income, maybe you hadn't been made aware of that.

Apparently, there's been quite a bit of evidence that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified (based on modern research efforts). I'm aware you will deny this, but (at least for open minded individuals) this might make for an interesting discussion.

Too, this Amendment came to be in and around the time acting President Woodrow Wilson stated "I have unwittingly ruined my country", after confessing he was duped by some rather powerful banking figures. Point is, some rather "shady" events were occurring at this time.

Why do you think Wilson would say such a thing?

.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Again you attempt to insert something that was not claimed, nor insinuated

You said

Is this a Bill Clinton "is" thing?

Sure, except that person A probably needs his 3rd dollar to survive a lot more than person B needs his 12,630,784th dollar, but hey - why let practical concerns enter into a discussion of - anything?

And Lord knows, we can't let anything subjective get into our decision making. When need to be 100% objective. For instance, X - 2% is clearly equal to or greater than X when Obama does it - because we feew it so.


Its 100% feewings, you're right. To suggest that someone 'needs' their third dollar of income is 100% subjective - we've no way whatsoever to determine how much it costs to live - that's all subjective - who really knows, anyway? The cost of living is just random and mysterious, no one has been able to even pin down a ballpark figure on that one.

And all I know is the 16th amendment guarantees dollars will be taxed as DiamondDave feews is right, the Congress should have nothing to do with it.


You mean a luxury tax? They already have those.
Why tax at all? Doing so requires making decisions that aren't 100% objective. We can't have that.

Sorry.. I would rather have a system where NO citizen gets to subject to more governmental power in the pandering game... I would rather we have the equal treatment where government loses that power of playing the pandering game... I don't want a rich person getting an exemption that a poor person is not, just as I do not want a poor person getting a rate a rich person is not.. the parts of the SUBJECTIVE system that leads to the pandering have to go on ALL sides....

The system must be made 100% objective. 100% objective means it agrees with DiamondDave.

So Dictator Dave, what have you 100% objectively decreed our flat tax rate to be?

No.. the luxury tax is like the gas tax.. on a THING.. not whether the person buying the gas or the unnecessary entertainment object is making 10K or 100M...

And yes.. all taxation should be without the subjective BULLSHIT.. blind to the situation.. just as justice is to be blind regardless of income, etc.. it is not the government's job to determine if you NEED dollar 3 more than the next guy needs dollar 8476823... Hey.. you may earn 20K, have zero bills and a nest egg stashed away.. your need for dollar 3 may be different than person C who also earns 20K but has 40K in college loans, a car, and rent... lets get even MORE SUBJECTIVE to make it even more FAIR

What % do we need?? The % that pays for the governmental bills and keeps us from running a deficit... funny thing is.. suddenly if those who have been getting off while others pay for their services finally start seeing a bill for those services, chances are that they will also start calling for more fiscal responsibility, audits, and reduction of governmental actions... and that, my dear troll, is why government plays the pandering game and the class warfare game... to keep the system alive that gives them more power.. the power to expand.. the power to keep gaining more power and more control.. which is why it has grown into the leviathan we have that is unsustainable... all because of the pandering, greed, and warfare built into the system

TRUE or FALSE:
"Government should consider the practical concerns and needs of the People when it makes laws."

 

[g5000]

[cue patriotic martial music]

Thomas Jefferson, the darling of the right and Libertarians everywhere, insisted on a progressive taxation system for 'Merka.

However, the original federal income tax code has gone from about a dozen pages since its creation to over 17,000 pages today. An average of one new tax expenditure has been added to the code every day for over a decade.

Every new tax expenditure is a cost which must be replaced by someone else, or must be made up for by printing more money or borrowing it from China or others.

This class warfare shit about taxing the rich more is one gigantic diversion. Taxing the rich will not punish the true evildoers, nor will it result in a more fair system.

When one business sector can pay enough Congressmen off with campaign donations to get a multimullion dollar tax expenditure put into the tax code for them, taxing the guy more who lives in a bigger house than you is NOT going to fix that problem!

When one business sector is able to pay enough Congressmen off with campaign donations to stop them from being imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives for undermining the very roots of our capitalist system, taxing the guy more who lives in a bigger house than you is NOT going to fix that problem!

You are an idiot if you are eating the "tax the rich more" red herring.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The 16th amendment allows Congress to levy a tax on your income, maybe you hadn't been made aware of that.

Apparently, there's been quite a bit of evidence that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified (based on modern research efforts).

And by "modern research efforts" - you mean really nice looking blogs with bloggers who are saying shit that just sounds like its got to be true and anyone who denies it just needs to look at those nice looking blogs and they'll see the truth?

I'm aware you will deny this, but (at least for open minded individuals) this might make for an interesting discussion.

Too, this Amendment came to be in and around the time acting President Woodrow Wilson stated "I have unwittingly ruined my country", after confessing he was duped by some rather powerful banking figures. Point is, some rather "shady" events were occurring at this time.

Why do you think Wilson would say such a thing?

.

42 out of 48 states in existence at the time ratified the Amendment. Have you ever read the Constitution? It requires 3/4. 3/4 of 48 is 36. 42>36 is it not? I know you and you generation love the blog - but are you aware that a blog cannot undo an act of a state legislature?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You said

Is this a Bill Clinton "is" thing?

Sure, except that person A probably needs his 3rd dollar to survive a lot more than person B needs his 12,630,784th dollar, but hey - why let practical concerns enter into a discussion of - anything?

And Lord knows, we can't let anything subjective get into our decision making. When need to be 100% objective. For instance, X - 2% is clearly equal to or greater than X when Obama does it - because we feew it so.


Its 100% feewings, you're right. To suggest that someone 'needs' their third dollar of income is 100% subjective - we've no way whatsoever to determine how much it costs to live - that's all subjective - who really knows, anyway? The cost of living is just random and mysterious, no one has been able to even pin down a ballpark figure on that one.

And all I know is the 16th amendment guarantees dollars will be taxed as DiamondDave feews is right, the Congress should have nothing to do with it.


You mean a luxury tax? They already have those.
Why tax at all? Doing so requires making decisions that aren't 100% objective. We can't have that.




The system must be made 100% objective. 100% objective means it agrees with DiamondDave.

So Dictator Dave, what have you 100% objectively decreed our flat tax rate to be?

No.. the luxury tax is like the gas tax.. on a THING.. not whether the person buying the gas or the unnecessary entertainment object is making 10K or 100M...

And yes.. all taxation should be without the subjective BULLSHIT.. blind to the situation.. just as justice is to be blind regardless of income, etc.. it is not the government's job to determine if you NEED dollar 3 more than the next guy needs dollar 8476823... Hey.. you may earn 20K, have zero bills and a nest egg stashed away.. your need for dollar 3 may be different than person C who also earns 20K but has 40K in college loans, a car, and rent... lets get even MORE SUBJECTIVE to make it even more FAIR

What % do we need?? The % that pays for the governmental bills and keeps us from running a deficit... funny thing is.. suddenly if those who have been getting off while others pay for their services finally start seeing a bill for those services, chances are that they will also start calling for more fiscal responsibility, audits, and reduction of governmental actions... and that, my dear troll, is why government plays the pandering game and the class warfare game... to keep the system alive that gives them more power.. the power to expand.. the power to keep gaining more power and more control.. which is why it has grown into the leviathan we have that is unsustainable... all because of the pandering, greed, and warfare built into the system

TRUE or FALSE:
"Government should consider the practical concerns and needs of the People when it makes laws."

What does a progressive tax system that promotes class envy/warfare have to do with this?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I would prefer to be in the flat tax bracket

where everyone pays the same % of their income.

There isn't one.

yeah i know... the low income, no income non federal tax paying leaches are very happy about that.

Yeah they'd be laughing all the way to the bank, too, if they had bank accounts. I hate poor people just like you do.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No.. the luxury tax is like the gas tax.. on a THING.. not whether the person buying the gas or the unnecessary entertainment object is making 10K or 100M...

And yes.. all taxation should be without the subjective BULLSHIT.. blind to the situation.. just as justice is to be blind regardless of income, etc.. it is not the government's job to determine if you NEED dollar 3 more than the next guy needs dollar 8476823... Hey.. you may earn 20K, have zero bills and a nest egg stashed away.. your need for dollar 3 may be different than person C who also earns 20K but has 40K in college loans, a car, and rent... lets get even MORE SUBJECTIVE to make it even more FAIR

What % do we need?? The % that pays for the governmental bills and keeps us from running a deficit... funny thing is.. suddenly if those who have been getting off while others pay for their services finally start seeing a bill for those services, chances are that they will also start calling for more fiscal responsibility, audits, and reduction of governmental actions... and that, my dear troll, is why government plays the pandering game and the class warfare game... to keep the system alive that gives them more power.. the power to expand.. the power to keep gaining more power and more control.. which is why it has grown into the leviathan we have that is unsustainable... all because of the pandering, greed, and warfare built into the system

TRUE or FALSE:
"Government should consider the practical concerns and needs of the People when it makes laws."

What does a progressive tax system that promotes class envy/warfare have to do with this?

INCORRECT ANSWER

(Grading true/false questions is made even easier when the test taker answers neither true nor false.)

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There isn't one.

yeah i know... the low income, no income non federal tax paying leaches are very happy about that.

Yeah they'd be laughing all the way to the bank, too, if they had bank accounts. I hate poor people just like you do.

Why do you hate poor people?

You don't sound very nice.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I would prefer to be in the flat tax bracket

where everyone pays the same % of their income.

There isn't one.

Uhm, probably why they used the word prefer there Sparky.

So "they" only prefer what they can't have?

 

[syrenn]

There isn't one.

yeah i know... the low income, no income non federal tax paying leaches are very happy about that.

Yeah they'd be laughing all the way to the bank, too, if they had bank accounts. I hate poor people just like you do.

i dont hate the poor. I just dont see them with blind eyes.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

yeah i know... the low income, no income non federal tax paying leaches are very happy about that.

Yeah they'd be laughing all the way to the bank, too, if they had bank accounts. I hate poor people just like you do.

Why do you hate poor people?

You don't sound very nice.

Because they don't pay income taxes. I pay income taxes. Not fair. BWAAHHH!!! Wo is me, my wife and I make a decent living, and have to pay some taxes because of it - our lives are so horrible! Oh to be a poor person and live tax free! If only I could do it!

 

[KevinWestern]

The 16th amendment allows Congress to levy a tax on your income, maybe you hadn't been made aware of that.

Apparently, there's been quite a bit of evidence that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified (based on modern research efforts).

And by "modern research efforts" - you mean really nice looking blogs with bloggers who are saying shit that just sounds like its got to be true and anyone who denies it just needs to look at those nice looking blogs and they'll see the truth?

I'm aware you will deny this, but (at least for open minded individuals) this might make for an interesting discussion.

Too, this Amendment came to be in and around the time acting President Woodrow Wilson stated "I have unwittingly ruined my country", after confessing he was duped by some rather powerful banking figures. Point is, some rather "shady" events were occurring at this time.

Why do you think Wilson would say such a thing?

.

42 out of 48 states at the time ratified the Amendment. Have you ever read the Constitution? I know you and you generation love the blog - but are you aware that a blog cannot undo an act of a state legislature?

Again, very condescending, hostile response. I asked you point blank "why are you so angry?" and you keep failing to respond - why?

Also, what generation are you a part of? Generally I've noticed that older folks a touch more respectful than the younger guys (because the older you get, the more you mature), so perhaps you're just an anomaly.

My comment on the ratification of the 16th amendment was merely that - a comment - and I explicitly stated I don't know much on the subject.

Questions you have not answered:

1.) Do you judge a person's intelligence based on their full understanding of the US tax code off the cuff?

2.) Are you an angry person, and do you treat people outside of USMB with the same level of immaturity and disrespect?

3.) Are you capable of having an adult-level conversation without shelling out insults to those who don't think exactly like you?


.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

TRUE or FALSE:
"Government should consider the practical concerns and needs of the People when it makes laws."

What does a progressive tax system that promotes class envy/warfare have to do with this?

INCORRECT ANSWER

(Grading true/false questions is made even easier when the test taker answers neither true nor false.)

I didn't answer the question you goofball... I only asked you to please provide some relevance. It's like asking me "who was the first signer of the Declaration of Independence?" on a calculus exam.

It makes no sense.

 

[KevinWestern]

INCORRECT ANSWER

(Grading true/false questions is made even easier when the test taker answers neither true nor false.)

Sometimes extraordinarily vague and open-ended questions cannot reasonably be answered with a simple "TRUE" or "FALSE" without additional information.



.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yeah they'd be laughing all the way to the bank, too, if they had bank accounts. I hate poor people just like you do.

Why do you hate poor people?

You don't sound very nice.

Because they don't pay income taxes. I pay income taxes. Not fair. BWAAHHH!!! Wo is me, my wife and I make a decent living, and have to pay some taxes because of it - our lives are so horrible! Oh to be a poor person and live tax free! If only I could do it!

I don't recall anybody arguing that they should live tax free...

I think the spirit of the Conservative movement, with regard to taxes, is that the tax code shouldn't be some giant transfer payment scheme designed to "get the evil rich"... which is what it has become to some.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

My comment on the ratification of the 16th amendment was merely that - a comment - and I explicitly stated I don't know much on the subject.

If you'd like to learn more, I'd recommend finding a nice looking blog with the craziest things you've ever heard, and just go with what they say. It must be true. The 16th amendment was never ratified - "modern research" says so!

1.) Do you judge a person's intelligence based on their full understanding of the US tax code off the cuff?

You don't have to fully understand the tax code to understand that 39.6% is not applied to every dollar if you make over 400k. No one can FULLY understand the code - i was just surprised you evidently hadn't ever read the first page.

2.) Are you an angry person, and do you treat people outside of USMB with the same level of immaturity and disrespect?

No, I get all my anger out on you idiots.

3.) Are you capable of having an adult-level conversation with another individual who doesn't necessarily think like you without insulting/him her?

Perhaps if they didn't get so offended and whiny every time someone called them a name.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

My comment on the ratification of the 16th amendment was merely that - a comment - and I explicitly stated I don't know much on the subject.

If you'd like to learn more, I'd recommend finding a nice looking blog with the craziest things you've ever heard, and just go with what they say. It must be true. The 16th amendment was never ratified - "modern research" says so!

1.) Do you judge a person's intelligence based on their full understanding of the US tax code off the cuff?

You don't have to fully understand the tax code to understand that 39.6% is not applied to every dollar if you make over 400k. No one can FULLY understand the code - i was just surprised you evidently hadn't ever read the first page.

2.) Are you an angry person, and do you treat people outside of USMB with the same level of immaturity and disrespect?

No, I get all my anger out on you idiots.

3.) Are you capable of having an adult-level conversation with another individual who doesn't necessarily think like you without insulting/him her?

Perhaps if they didn't get so offended and whiny every time someone called them a name.

Why even call them a name? I mean, I called you a goofball, but only because you're deflecting at every turn and can't stay on topic.. your own topic by the way!

 

[KevinWestern]

Because they don't pay income taxes. I pay income taxes. Not fair. BWAAHHH!!! Wo is me, my wife and I make a decent living, and have to pay some taxes because of it - our lives are so horrible! Oh to be a poor person and live tax free! If only I could do it!

Most conservatives realize the need for taxation.

However, the problem is that so much of our money is going to waste (ie $4 trillion dollar wars like Iraq and $80 billion dollar domestic spy programs).

Are you not at all upset that a portion of your tax dollars is going to Halliburton to do soldier's laundry at $100/a pop? Do you realize that there are rich people getting rich off... excessive taxation?

You seem to have a rather one track mind, and only answer the parts of people's questions that suit your own agenda.


.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why do you hate poor people?

You don't sound very nice.

Because they don't pay income taxes. I pay income taxes. Not fair. BWAAHHH!!! Wo is me, my wife and I make a decent living, and have to pay some taxes because of it - our lives are so horrible! Oh to be a poor person and live tax free! If only I could do it!

I don't recall anybody arguing that they should live tax free...

No, just that taxes should always be cut and never be raised. If taxes are 60%, they should be cut. If they are 1%, they should be cut. If they are 0.000000000000001% - they should be cut. So you're right, not zero.

I think the spirit of the Conservative movement, with regard to taxes, is that the tax code shouldn't be some giant transfer payment scheme designed to "get the evil rich"... which is what it has become to some.

It isn't designed to "get the evil rich", no more than the gas tax is designed to "get the evil users of gasoline".

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

INCORRECT ANSWER

(Grading true/false questions is made even easier when the test taker answers neither true nor false.)

Sometimes extraordinarily vague and open-ended questions cannot reasonably be answered with a simple "TRUE" or "FALSE" without additional information.



.

It is neither vague nor open ended.